What set the universe into motion?

[DNAunion]

tacoman528: Then wouldn't there need to be some energy to start the big bang.

DNAunion: Maybe. One hypothesis holds that the amount of positive energy in our Universe is exactly balanced by the amount of negative energy, such as gravity (binding energies are considered to be negative). If that turns out to be the case, then there is NOW a net of 0 energy in the Universe. So it could have been no energy originally, with the positive and negative energies then being released at the same instant in a conserved manner. It would all balance out to 0 energy, all the time.

Think about it this way. Pair creation can involve the simultaneous formation of an electron and a positron (this is established fact). Once they are formed, the electron has a charge of 1- and the positron has a charge of 1+; but their net charge is still 0. Before they were created, there was no charge. After they were created, there was still no NET charge, yet there was a positive 1 and a negative 1 charge. As long as total charge is conserved, no violation occurs in the creation of positive charge. Similarly, as long as total energy is conserved, no violation occurs in the creation of positive energy.

Whether the positive and negative energies in our Universe do exactly balance to 0 is not known.

 

[nephilimiyr]

lucaspa

Nephilimiyr, you have made a logical mistake.&nbsp; You have tied <B>creation</B> to creation<B>ism</B>.&nbsp; Those are two separate terms and concepts.&nbsp; Creation is a theological statement that deity created, often linked to a purpose of deity.&nbsp; Creationism is a particular <B>how</B> that deity created.&nbsp; What you have done is say that, if deity didn't create the way you say, then deity didn't create and doesn't exist.&nbsp; The logical flaw is easy to see.


From now on look carefully and see if you are talking about creation or creationism.

Thanks for pointing that out to me. I didn't know creationism was&nbsp; that complex but if it is&nbsp;I&nbsp;agree with you saying it a flaw.&nbsp;

The individuals you quoted were <B>not</B> describing evolution.&nbsp; They were answering a specific question: Where did the matter/energy/spacetime of the universe come from?&nbsp; And their answers are the scientifically correct ones.&nbsp; They are using the appropriate tentativeness describing their claims.

But the reason why a posted the way I did with asking this question...

Why is it that&nbsp;atheists and or&nbsp;evolutionists always answers a question about our universe saying maybe it's because of this or maybe it's because of that, it could be this or it could be that. Whenever asked about the possibility of a creation they say absolutly not and when they ask a question to us who believe in a creation they demand absolute answers?&nbsp;

was to point out that&nbsp;the tentativeness in their answers that they put forward as the scientifically correct ones is the same way some of us put forward the belief in a creator. I don't claim I know how or why a creator created but useing faith I do adhere to the belief and aren't they doing the same if they say they believe in the possibilty of something else? Odviously they aren't useing too much evidence to form their opinions if they question it so.

&nbsp;

 

[David Gould]

Originally posted by nephilimiyr


was to point out that&nbsp;the tentativeness in their answers that they put forward as the scientifically correct ones is the same way some of us put forward the belief in a creator. I don't claim I know how or why a creator created but useing faith I do adhere to the belief and aren't they doing the same if they say they believe in the possibilty of something else? Odviously they aren't useing too much evidence to form their opinions if they question it so.

&nbsp;

If there is no evidence for something then I do not believe it.

There is no evidence that a creator created the universe. It is certainly possible that one did, but until someone comes up with some evidence I will not believe it.

I do not know how the universe came to be. There are many possibilities, of&nbsp;which a creator is one. I&nbsp;am not simply going to pick one at random. When there is evidence,&nbsp;then I will tentatively follow where the evidence points.

I am unsure what you mean about "not using too much evidence".

There is plenty of evidence for what I believe.

However, I hold no beliefs about how the universe began, although I can speculate with the best of them.

Belief without any evidence is the path to madness.

 

[nephilimiyr]

If there's plenty of evidence for what you believe why do you make yourself sound so unsure about it?

 

[David Gould]

Originally posted by nephilimiyr
If there's plenty of evidence for what you believe why do you make yourself sound so unsure about it?

There is zero evidence for how the universe came about. That means I am completely unsure how it happened.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution, however. I am not unsure about that.

They are two completely different things.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Personally I see the question as more of a philosophical one then a scientific one because it deals with abstract concepts, ultimate states etc. Though one that may be informed by science, you will have to get into philosophy to get a rational answer.

The most logical/rational answer at this point is basically the universe(all that exists) or matter(presuming only matter exists) has always been moving, at least in an aspect.

This is because we either end somewhere with what "started motion" which presupposes an "unmoved mover" which will violate the idea that all things which move have to start moving via an extrinsic source. The whole "what moved God" question comes up. Or we have to think in terms of an infinite number of starter(s) which seems to be no different then eternal/instrinsic motion in the universe or matter. This leads to an infinite regress and contradictions as no "mover" is really starting anything at this point. To then say "everything must be moved via extrinsic means" demands an extrinsic explanation for the infinite regress.

Or we can simply end with an eternal motion to the universe, motion being intrinsic to the universe itself. That rules out superfluous entities and seems to make the most sense. This offers the most clean cut picture available.

 

[Hector Medina]

I my self am prous to know how the universe got here.

God did it.

 

[Hector Medina]

I, myself am proud to know how the universe got here.


God did it.

A world account over 6000 years old in 6 days of work and the 7th day for rest.
Plus,it never changes

God Bless,
In Christ,

Hector

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Hector Medina
I, myself am proud to know how the universe got here.


God did it.

A world account over 6000 years old in 6 days of work and the 7th day for rest.
Plus,it never changes

God Bless,
In Christ,

Hector

 

[Arikay]

I, myself am proud that I dont think I know everything
and can say for a fact that I dont know.

 

[Praxiteles]

What a thing of glorious beauty it is, to claim to have knowledge and in the process proving that you don't. The irony is so delicious that I don't think I'll feel hungry for a couple of days.

 

[Tenek]

Every question answered brings up two more...

or, the more you know, the more you realize you don't know much of anything at all.

I haven't really got a clue. Sure, I could say God did it. Or I could say that the Big Bang started everything. In neither case do I have any evidence for where those came from.

 

[Praxiteles]

It was the Great Green Arkleseizure. Doesn't anybody read Douglas Adams anymore?

 

[Arikay]

The more you think the less you know,
the more you know the less you think.

Originally posted by Tenek
Every question answered brings up two more...

or, the more you know, the more you realize you don't know much of anything at all.

I haven't really got a clue. Sure, I could say God did it. Or I could say that the Big Bang started everything. In neither case do I have any evidence for where those came from.

 

[Praxiteles]

For anyone who is genuinely seeking the truth, I have it.&nbsp; Please go to this site that discusses the Great Green Arkleseizure&nbsp; and learn.

 

[Bob Singleton]

How do you get blessings?

Blessings are secondary.&nbsp; Believe God for blessings in another time.&nbsp; Look, we get blessings for obeying God but no one has ever been able to claim those blessings.&nbsp; That's why Jesus died.&nbsp; He became sin for us.&nbsp; We get credit for righteousness.&nbsp; Our primary reward however is knowing God.&nbsp; Like Stephen who blessed those that were killing him, like Paul who was beaten so often but was inspired to continue because he knew God.&nbsp; Knowing God gives us a hope for the future.&nbsp; Blessings, and living for them is Old Testament.

 

[wblastyn]

Er I think he was talking about the "blessings" thing under your name.

 

[Osiris]

I did like a responce Arikay said in a different post on this, the universe was never existed so there was nothing "0".
Universe&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(7-8)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(5 * 2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(&nbsp;X²)&nbsp;&nbsp; (X³)
0 0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;-1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(2-3)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(10 * -1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (-X²)&nbsp; (-X³)

the universe is the zeros, the number on the top and on the bottom can be said is the universe as well, the universe keeps expanding but still it equals to zero...

This is what I grasped from his post , I don't know if I explained it good though.